Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c05::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c05::232;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52C880CB.9030601@gmx.de>
References: <CALMa68rsTJfC+rq0DnX8NGh9tRR771sucRiArVF4nubTaAJi5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<52C880CB.9030601@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 22:12:12 -0200
Message-ID: <CALMa68pPfLZYn3hq+qpQRbGNTG2WExZFHp6OiLHV0igeXr9PKA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] {to'e ri'a}
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e010d9d40b8e31d04ef2dfe47
X-Spam_score: 0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 1
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  ki'e sai selpa'i That is very clear! Maybe it should be posted
    somewhere? mu'o mi'e .asiz. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (felipeg.assis[at]gmail.com)
  0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
                             CUSTOM_MED
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID         DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid

--089e010d9d40b8e31d04ef2dfe47
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

ki'e sai selpa'i

That is very clear! Maybe it should be posted somewhere?

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.


On 4 January 2014 18:44, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

> la'o me. Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis .me cusku di'e
>
>  I am confused. If the referent of the tagged sumti prevents the event
>> described by the bridi, which event is there for the main brid to refer
>> to?
>>
>> The page doesn't give examples. What would them be, if any?
>>
>
> Since this is a topic that should be of interest to almost anyone, I will
> try to give a brief summary not only of {NAhE + BAI}, but also of how all
> the causation sumtcita work, and how they interact with NAhE and NAI, sin=
ce
> all this should be common knowledge (afterall it's needed on a daily basi=
s).
>
> The idea is that each of the {to'e + causation sumtcita} give a different
> shade of {fanta}, "to prevent".
>
> For example, {to'e ri'a} means the same as {to'e rinka}, just in sumtcita
> form, and adding {nai} to a sumtcita creates a contradictory negation (i.=
e.
> {ri'a nai} -> {na rinka}).
>
> To begin with, using a causation sumtcita puts the tagged sumti into the
> x1, and the main bridi into the x2. Here is an example:
>
>  (1a) mi lebna ki'u lo nu mi xagji mutce
>       "I took it because I was so hungry."
>
> (1a) can be refactored as (1b).
>
>  (1b) lo nu mi xagji mutce cu krinu lo nu [da'i nai] mi lebna
>       "My being very hungry was the reason I took it."
>
> (you need to make sure that the events are still getting asserted, which =
I
> will ignore here for the sake of simplicity)
>
> This transformation is very basic, but it helps us to undestand the
> meaning of more complex sumtcita and their relationship to the main bridi=
.
> It's possible to attach NAhE as well as NAI, as in (2a) and (3a).
>
>  (2a) mi klama mu'i nai lo nu lo speni cu zvati
>       "I didn't go because my wife was there." (but presumably for anothe=
r
> reason)"
>
> {mu'i nai} does not mean "despite" (anymore). (2b) shows why (2a) means
> what it means now, using the same transformation as before:
>
>  (2b) lo nu lo speni cu zvati cu na mukti lo nu mi klama
>       "My wife being there was not the motivation for my going there."
>
> Next, (3a) shows an example of {to'e}+causative.
>
>  (3a) ? mi farlu to'e ri'a lo nu do jgari lo mi xance
>         "I fell, prevented by your holding my hand."
>
> Refactoring, we get (3b).
>
>  (3b) lo nu do jgari lo mi xance cu to'e rinka lo nu mi farlu
>       "You holding my hand prevented my from falling."
>
> In (3a), we have the slightly strange case of a sumtcita removing the
> assertion from the main bridi without any contradictory negation, which i=
s
> probably exactly what confused you. The strangeness disappears in (3b),
> because rinka2 is no longer asserted by default.
>
> We can either conclude that (3a) is not a well-formed statement, or that
> there exist certain sumtcita that can change the assertive force of the
> main bridi on their own. The former would make {to'e ri'a} rather useless=
,
> as you noticed; the latter would be slightly unusual (not completely
> unusual, cf. CAhA).
>
> In any case, while {to'e ri'a} itself might be of limited use, {to'e se
> ri'a} is still perfectly usable, as for example in (3c):
>
>  (3c) do jgari lo mi xance to'e se ri'a lo nu mi farlu
>       "You held my hand, thereby preventing me from falling."
>
> And once we add a {nai} to {to'e ri'a}, all is in order again, as shown b=
y
> (4a-b).
>
>  (4a) mi dunda fi do to'e mu'i nai lo nu do ta'e darxi
>       "I will give it to you despite you always hitting me."
>
> And again, we can rewrite as (4b) to see how that meaning comes about.
>
>  (4b) lo nu do ta'e darxi cu na to'e mukti lo nu mi dunda fi do
>       "You always hitting me does not demotivate me from giving it to you=
."
>
> All the above works in exactly the same way with the other BAI that can
> integrate the main bridi as an argument of their base predicate, like {ta=
i}
> and {du'i}, so it's very important to learn this well. Plus, it's a
> recurring theme in tense semantics, too.
>
> mi'e la selpa'i mu'o
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--089e010d9d40b8e31d04ef2dfe47
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>ki&#39;e sai selpa&#39;i<br><br></div>That is ve=
ry clear! Maybe it should be posted somewhere?<br><br></div>mu&#39;o<br>mi&=
#39;e .asiz.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmai=
l_quote">
On 4 January 2014 18:44, selpa&#39;i <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailt=
o:seladwa@gmx.de" target=3D"_blank">seladwa@gmx.de</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br=
><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1=
px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
la&#39;o me. Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis .me cusku di&#39;e<div class=3D"im"><=
br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I am confused. If the referent of the tagged sumti prevents the event<br>
described by the bridi, which event is there for the main brid to refer to?=
<br>
<br>
The page doesn&#39;t give examples. What would them be, if any?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Since this is a topic that should be of interest to almost anyone, I will t=
ry to give a brief summary not only of {NAhE + BAI}, but also of how all th=
e causation sumtcita work, and how they interact with NAhE and NAI, since a=
ll this should be common knowledge (afterall it&#39;s needed on a daily bas=
is).<br>

<br>
The idea is that each of the {to&#39;e + causation sumtcita} give a differe=
nt shade of {fanta}, &quot;to prevent&quot;.<br>
<br>
For example, {to&#39;e ri&#39;a} means the same as {to&#39;e rinka}, just i=
n sumtcita form, and adding {nai} to a sumtcita creates a contradictory neg=
ation (i.e. {ri&#39;a nai} -&gt; {na rinka}).<br>
<br>
To begin with, using a causation sumtcita puts the tagged sumti into the x1=
, and the main bridi into the x2. Here is an example:<br>
<br>
=A0(1a) mi lebna ki&#39;u lo nu mi xagji mutce<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 &quot;I took it because I was so hungry.&quot;<br>
<br>
(1a) can be refactored as (1b).<br>
<br>
=A0(1b) lo nu mi xagji mutce cu krinu lo nu [da&#39;i nai] mi lebna<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 &quot;My being very hungry was the reason I took it.&quot;<br>
<br>
(you need to make sure that the events are still getting asserted, which I =
will ignore here for the sake of simplicity)<br>
<br>
This transformation is very basic, but it helps us to undestand the meaning=
 of more complex sumtcita and their relationship to the main bridi. It&#39;=
s possible to attach NAhE as well as NAI, as in (2a) and (3a).<br>
<br>
=A0(2a) mi klama mu&#39;i nai lo nu lo speni cu zvati<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 &quot;I didn&#39;t go because my wife was there.&quot; (but pre=
sumably for another reason)&quot;<br>
<br>
{mu&#39;i nai} does not mean &quot;despite&quot; (anymore). (2b) shows why =
(2a) means what it means now, using the same transformation as before:<br>
<br>
=A0(2b) lo nu lo speni cu zvati cu na mukti lo nu mi klama<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 &quot;My wife being there was not the motivation for my going t=
here.&quot;<br>
<br>
Next, (3a) shows an example of {to&#39;e}+causative.<br>
<br>
=A0(3a) ? mi farlu to&#39;e ri&#39;a lo nu do jgari lo mi xance<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 &quot;I fell, prevented by your holding my hand.&quot;<br>
<br>
Refactoring, we get (3b).<br>
<br>
=A0(3b) lo nu do jgari lo mi xance cu to&#39;e rinka lo nu mi farlu<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 &quot;You holding my hand prevented my from falling.&quot;<br>
<br>
In (3a), we have the slightly strange case of a sumtcita removing the asser=
tion from the main bridi without any contradictory negation, which is proba=
bly exactly what confused you. The strangeness disappears in (3b), because =
rinka2 is no longer asserted by default.<br>

<br>
We can either conclude that (3a) is not a well-formed statement, or that th=
ere exist certain sumtcita that can change the assertive force of the main =
bridi on their own. The former would make {to&#39;e ri&#39;a} rather useles=
s, as you noticed; the latter would be slightly unusual (not completely unu=
sual, cf. CAhA).<br>

<br>
In any case, while {to&#39;e ri&#39;a} itself might be of limited use, {to&=
#39;e se ri&#39;a} is still perfectly usable, as for example in (3c):<br>
<br>
=A0(3c) do jgari lo mi xance to&#39;e se ri&#39;a lo nu mi farlu<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 &quot;You held my hand, thereby preventing me from falling.&quo=
t;<br>
<br>
And once we add a {nai} to {to&#39;e ri&#39;a}, all is in order again, as s=
hown by (4a-b).<br>
<br>
=A0(4a) mi dunda fi do to&#39;e mu&#39;i nai lo nu do ta&#39;e darxi<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 &quot;I will give it to you despite you always hitting me.&quot=
;<br>
<br>
And again, we can rewrite as (4b) to see how that meaning comes about.<br>
<br>
=A0(4b) lo nu do ta&#39;e darxi cu na to&#39;e mukti lo nu mi dunda fi do<b=
r>
=A0 =A0 =A0 &quot;You always hitting me does not demotivate me from giving =
it to you.&quot;<br>
<br>
All the above works in exactly the same way with the other BAI that can int=
egrate the main bridi as an argument of their base predicate, like {tai} an=
d {du&#39;i}, so it&#39;s very important to learn this well. Plus, it&#39;s=
 a recurring theme in tense semantics, too.<br>

<br>
mi&#39;e la selpa&#39;i mu&#39;o<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#8888=
88"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target=3D"=
_blank">lojban+unsubscribe@<u></u>googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban" targe=
t=3D"_blank">http://groups.google.com/<u></u>group/lojban</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/<u></u>groups/opt_out</a>.<br=
>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

--089e010d9d40b8e31d04ef2dfe47--